Hi folks,
On Dom 21 Feb 2010, SteveC wrote:
> 1) click 'feedback' or 'problem'
> 2) enter problem
> 3) click ok
I think an easy feedback system is great. And I like the idea of "exposing
bugs".
For this I think it would be essential to coordinate a bit and prepare in an
explicit manner workflows (and make them fun, light and non-bureaucratic).
I know, these workflows exist already, but they are not "mapped" (not
documented) I think, as usual in an OpenSource project or other common team
structures, where workflows establish themselves over time, and mostly
perform quite well.
Basically I think of creating a tree of bug categories, and in the end of that
tree should be supporters who feel it their job to fix the incoming bugs.
This bug tree should be easy and fun to use. For me, i.e. bugzilla is an
example of a highly functional but difficult bug tracking system.
The first supporters we need are the ones who decide the category of a bug, to
assign bugs to the right category/ supporting people.
Oviously, bug categories correlate with skill profile, interest and free time
of supporters (and for mapping fixes, geographic activity).
I think it would be helpful as well to make a survey about skill profiles of
the supporters (us), to find in some emergency perhaps another supporter who
could help out, without depending always on optimal communications.
So this would "expose" as well the skill and power of human resources (or the
lack of it) of an important part of the OSM project.
So your kind of provocative post could have a very good impact on OSM I think,
in establishing better-organized workflows.
Of course the whole process should be fun, and no boring bug-fixing slavery.
Even more challenging than that kind of system to organize collaborative work
would be establishing an organized system of decision-making (but I think
this is perhaps just fully utopic democratic geekery).
Chances are that an external feedback system will not fit our needs.
Cheers!
Jochen